Guy, you're not alone

[giblets]

They only have "control of the world's food supply" as long as producing food with their seeds is cheaper than producing food with traditional seeds, and as long as their patents are in effect. How are they making anyone worse off? Their only "control" is their ability to pocket most of the cost savings in the short run.

[Sir Og]

They only have "control of the world's food supply" as long as producing food with their seeds is cheaper than producing food with traditional seeds, and as long as their patents are in effect. How are they making anyone worse off? Their only "control" is their ability to pocket most of the cost savings in the short run.

QFT

[Elok]

The variety patent covers "Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield trait technology" which was launched in 2009. I READ. YOU DIDN'T.

The first possibility of planting seeds saved from Roundup Ready soybean varieties will occur in spring 2015 (using seeds from the crop planted and harvested in 2014). Farmers who are interested in replanting saved Roundup Ready soybeans will need to check with their seed supplier to find out if the variety they are interested in can legally be saved and replanted. In addition to the trait patent, most Roundup Ready soybeans are protected by other forms of intellectual property, such as varietal patents. These variety patents will continue to be valid after (and usually long after) the Roundup Ready trait patent expires.

[C0ckney]

They only have "control of the world's food supply" as long as producing food with their seeds is cheaper than producing food with traditional seeds, and as long as their patents are in effect. How are they making anyone worse off? Their only "control" is their ability to pocket most of the cost savings in the short run.

how does any monopoly/oligopoly situation make people worse off?

[giblets]

how does any monopoly/oligopoly situation make people worse off?

Relative to what counterfactual outcome? A monopoly on something that wouldn't otherwise exist doesn't make people worse off than they would be if that thing didn't exist. If the ability to patent the creation of new seeds causes new seeds to be developed at least 20 years sooner, then the allowing corporations to patent a new seed for 20 years doesn't make society worse off.

[C0ckney]

seeds would exist without monsanto et al.

[giblets]

@Elok
The expiration of a variety patent depends on when that variety was developed. The trait patent expires 20 years after that trait was developed.

[giblets]

seeds would exist without monsanto et al.

Yes, "seeds" would exist. Seeds that are worth less than the seeds sold by Monsanto. The existence of traditional seeds puts an upper limit on how much Monsanto can charge for its patented seeds.

[Jon Miller]

Yes, "seeds" would exist. Seeds that are worth less than the seeds sold by Monsanto. The existence of traditional seeds puts an upper limit on how much Monsanto can charge for its patented seeds.

I and others contend that in some areas 'traditional' seeds no longer are available because of natural interbreeding.

JM

[Elok]

@Elok
The expiration of a variety patent depends on when that variety was developed. The trait patent expires 20 years after that trait was developed.

Yes, but from a farmer's perspective, that distinction is very nearly moot; it's not like Farmer Bob has gene-splicing equipment handy. Competitors are now free to start selling twenty-year-old varieties, assuming all the big distributors don't have exclusive deals with Monsanto. But I'd be astonished if they didn't. I imagine "varieties," combined with licensing restrictions, allow them to pull a fairly simple scam where they constantly introduce superficially different varieties and phase out sales of the old ones as their patents expire. Pharmaceuticals companies do something similar, after all.

More broadly, it always perplexes me how we Americans tend to view the free market as the natural state of things. Free competition is lovely, where it exists--because it's good for the consumer. It's terrible for companies, since it forces them to either cut costs or sink money into innovation. Therefore, companies would be utter fools not to eliminate the possibility of competition whenever and wherever they get an opportunity. We only ever achieve "free" markets by constraining the hell out of the players. There's nothing free about them, really; we've taken a pride of lions, put muzzles and harnesses on them, and forced them to race each other around a track for our benefit. Then we act grumpy when they try to shake off the restraints and go back to the more vicious and brutal brand of competition they would naturally prefer.

[giblets]

Patents are a deviation from a free market intended to mitigate a market failure (the gap between the social returns on innovation and the private returns in a free market). GMO's are not a mature technology by any means so in the short term we don't have a free market in GMO's. Producing seeds doesn't seem like a natural monopoly or oligopoly to me.

[C0ckney]

Relative to what counterfactual outcome? A monopoly on something that wouldn't otherwise exist doesn't make people worse off than they would be if that thing didn't exist. If the ability to patent the creation of new seeds causes new seeds to be developed at least 20 years sooner, then the allowing corporations to patent a new seed for 20 years doesn't make society worse off.

i didn't see this dans, but obviously my contention is that allowing one or a few companies to dominate the seed market, and by the extension the food supply, that is, to control both producers and consumers, makes society worse off.

[C0ckney]

Patents are a deviation from a free market intended to mitigate a market failure (the gap between the social returns on innovation and the private returns in a free market). GMO's are not a mature technology by any means so in the short term we don't have a free market in GMO's. Producing seeds doesn't seem like a natural monopoly or oligopoly to me.

yet the big companies have achieved near total control of some markets and are constantly advancing in others. they are big and powerful, so much so that even very substantial commercial farmers are minnows compared to them. they clearly use this power to first control, then in effective terms eliminate, markets. and this is the problem with your (standard classical) analysis of the issue. you use words like 'choice' and 'better' as if they - even if we ignore the questions what they really mean - were the determining factor. words like 'power' and 'control' bring us far nearer to understanding what's going on.

[C0ckney]

More broadly, it always perplexes me how we Americans tend to view the free market as the natural state of things. Free competition is lovely, where it exists--because it's good for the consumer. It's terrible for companies, since it forces them to either cut costs or sink money into innovation. Therefore, companies would be utter fools not to eliminate the possibility of competition whenever and wherever they get an opportunity. We only ever achieve "free" markets by constraining the hell out of the players. There's nothing free about them, really; we've taken a pride of lions, put muzzles and harnesses on them, and forced them to race each other around a track for our benefit. Then we act grumpy when they try to shake off the restraints and go back to the more vicious and brutal brand of competition they would naturally prefer.

very well put. it's been the case for a long time (galbraith was talking about it in the 1960s for heaven's sake) that the standard classical model doesn't apply to most of the economy. this is especially true in sectors where advanced technology and scientific knowledge is required, such as pharmaceuticals or GMOs. yet we see people time and again applying a classical analysis to sectors that cannot be explained by one.

[Aeson]

If Monsanto's seed is no longer worth using, it no longer will be. It's more expensive seed already ... the reason farmers use it is because it results in better yields, fewer required inputs, and more profits.

If you view Monsanto as a problem for being too successful, what you want to do is break down barriers to producing GMO seed so that more competitors can break into the market. Instead, what the anti-GMO crowd has accomplished is to ensure that the established players are the only ones who can exist, because it takes a huge amount of lobbying just to get/keep seed approved.